Here's a copy of an email I will soon be sending to Jack Thompson:
Quote:Dear Jack Thompson,
I've been an avid gamer for many years, but unlike others I'm not going to spend this email trying to insult you or called you names. Rather, I'd like to engage you in an honest debate, if this is possible. I'd like to start by posting an essay that I did for my Physchology class in college that deals with the effects of violence [though it's more in general rather than focusing exclusively on video games]. I've gone over several studies and articles written about this subject and have compiled them into a comprehensive arguement. If you have the time, I would like for you to read it over and explain to how it's wrong:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although some studies have claimed to found a “link” between violent television and violent behavior amongst children, many of these studies were conducted in laboratory environments and on short-term bases instead of in the “real world” and on long term bases.
What can be shown in laboratory tests is not necessarily what takes place in natural setting, such as at home or school. Because investigators can produce sociopathic attitudes and behaviors in the laboratory does not mean that violent television programming does create such effects within a naturalistic viewing environment. A laboratory is not a setting most children would be familiar with and they would be surrounded by strangers, so it’s possible that all this could influence the way a child would react in a certain way that they wouldn’t normally do if they were in their home or school surrounded by family or friends and teachers.
Also, in the “real world” there are many social, psychological, and biological factors that can drown out the “influence” of the mass media. Also, nearly all developed nations are exposed to similar types of mass media and many of them have lower crime rates than American, which suggests that there are other issues in play.
One thing to consider is that many children are exposed to crime, drug addiction, and child abuse or neglect in real life, all factors which have been proven to contribute to violent and anti-social behavior. A recent study in an urban setting found that 40% of children were receiving public assistance, all had been exposed to media violence, but 97% also had been exposed to real-life violence. Almost half had been victims of violence themselves, and almost a third had seen a person stabbed, shot, or killed. Peer relations are always influential in forming attitudes towards violence, and they become increasingly important when absent parenting creates a vacuum.
The National Television Violence Study, a cable industry investigation that analyzed the 1994-1995 season, found no direct connection between TV and real-world violence. And in his new book, Power Play, Gerald Jones writes, “children need stories of conflict and violence in order to explore the scary feelings they’ve been taught to deny, and then to integrate those feelings into a more complex and resilient sense of self.”
Something that’s important to note is that plays such as Macbeth and puppet show like Punch and Judy, both of which feature two very different types of violence, have been watched for years. People enjoy watching the mayhem of others. But something that needs to exist is an ability to distinguish between violence on TV and violence in real life. Parents must teach their children that real life violence has consequences and that it causes others to suffer while violence in movies and games is simply make-believe.
Most researchers agree that the causes of real-world violence are complex. A 1993 study by the US National Academy of Sciences listed “biological, individual, family, peer, school and community factors” as all playing a role in the development of children. And a 2001 report by the US surgeon general concluded that “the preponderance of evidence indicated that violent behavior seldom results from a single cause; rather, multiple factors converging over time contribute to such behavior.” So it seems unfair to pull out one factor among many and say “this is the problem, if we remove it everything will be all right.”
Viewing abnormally large amounts of violent television and video games may well contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals. The trouble comes when researches downplay uncertainties in their studies or overstate the case for causality.
It’s also important to understand that nothing about violence is new. Jack the Ripper lived long before people even dreamed of television or videogames, but that didn’t stop him from being a brutal, homicidal maniac who killed at least five women. And there are many more stories similar to this. Violence has existed long before Grand Theft Auto became a convenient excuse for random acts of killing and it will continue to exist long after those videogames are forgotten.
Violence also has its place in society. Many of the great tragedies of the 20th century would simply make no sense without the pictures and videos that go along with them to give a sense of reality to the people viewing them. They can be used to stir people to action or to open their wallets and help those in need. Censoring the violence of those images and video would reduce the scope and magnitude of the tragedies and allow them to be overlooked and forgotten more easily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I look forward to recieving your reply.
More on this as it develops.
Curses!! None of my emails are making it to his inbox.
Yeah good luck with that. I still haven't recieved a response to the e-mail I sent to him some time ago. You remember that one? I posted the entire text in some forum.
Read it before I saw your response. Uncanny!
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/violent-gam...130254.php
So that explains it. The Penny Arcade e-mail bomb has struck again! That's why you can't get through today.
Yeah, the guy is basically wanting a game company to make a game where a father exacts revenge on the gaming industry for killing his kid.
Um...
Exactly what is this supposed to do really? $10,000 to a charity for that? What is the point? Is this vengance to be litigation related or violence? If he means vengence as in violence, he is promoting the creation of a violent game. The topic matter seems pretty irrelevent. I mean, what is the point? What is he trying to say?
I must take a small issue with your argument there though. You imagine that all psychology tests take place "in the lab". That's a bit off. Also, you suggest that any test won't reflect what may happen in the real world. If that is the case, in what way has a scientific test been conducted? The reality is scientists are welll aware of these limitations when they set up and conduct these tests. Any data they do gleam from them will be listed with exactly what limitations they know are in place. Reading a standard news site to get your scientific information is a bit of a middle man approach. I recommend reading the actual study straight from the scientists. Usually you can find these available at the web sites various institutes host. Then you can actually find the logical flaws in the experiment's design first hand, rather than giving a vague "well, I don't know the details, but science doesn't has it's limits!". If you look around, you may find that a lot of the tests may not have been conducted well and you can actually point out the flaws right there.
That's your best bet.
I had a similar thought a couple months ago about emailing Jack Thompson to try and engage him in a (somewhat) peaceful and objective debate.
Then I got hungry and forgot about it.
Face it, GR, he sees all gamers as mindless drones just waiting for our chance to kill everyone in sight. He will not give you benefit of the doubt, he will not listen to you, and it's impossible to try and reaosn with someone like him.
However, should you actually engage him in conversational debate, here are a few points I though up when I was pondering the idea that you could also use, if you so choose:
* What do you say of the studies that show video games can actually improve a persons logical skills and reflexes?
* Do you feel that there are any games on the market now that are beneficial to the gaming populace (such as Nintendogs, DS Brain Training, and so forth)?
* Do you not feel that the media circus that surrounded your crusade against Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, may have added to sales of a game that was already 6 months old and starting to go downhill?
* On the topic of San Andreas, don't you think it's a bit excessive to penalize a game for content that it, for all intents and purposes, does not have?
* Do you feel that video games are solely to blame for violence? Many of the teens that have killed citing San Andreas as their motivation have already had troubled pasts.
* Do you feel we should also ban R-Rated movies? What about Stephen King books? Both of those can offer scenes (even if only written in explicit detail, with the latter example) far more horrific than even the goriest video game.
I'd just love to see what kind of answers he would pull out of his ass for these.
The only truth to his arguments is that exposure to things does affect people in some way... but in the way he suggests? No. Maybe it does help innure people to violence or whatever, but the whole media does that, not just videogames... sure, video games could be called "worse" because they are interactive, but I don't think there's a very big difference. Blaming it all on videogames is stupid, of course. The better question is "how does the media/popular culture (music, movies, videogames, etc) affect children/people?", and that's a much better question.
But even there, the answer isn't "it makes them all violent killers", of that we can be certain...
It affects people who are already too crazy not to know the difference between fantasy and reality. I have played San Andreas, and done many of the more deplorable things possible in that game. I've played Unreal Tournament and became quite adept at blowing off heads with a Sniper Rifle. I've played as Solid Snake and sealed the fates of hundereds of Genome Soldiers over the years.
Much to Jack Thompsons surprise, I'm sure, I have no desire nor motivation to do anything I've seen in a video game (bad, that is. I have been known to mimic Mario's jump and Auron's battle pose :D). You know why? Because I know the difference between what happens on my TV and what happens in real life. All of these people who have been "affected" by video games are already unbalanced, or at the very least, dangerously presentable. In essence, bombs just waiting for something, anything to light their fuse.
Quote:I had a similar thought a couple months ago about emailing Jack Thompson to try and engage him in a (somewhat) peaceful and objective debate.
Then I got hungry and forgot about it.
Face it, GR, he sees all gamers as mindless drones just waiting for our chance to kill everyone in sight. He will not give you benefit of the doubt, he will not listen to you, and it's impossible to try and reaosn with someone like him.
Poor bitter bastard. ;) You may have a point that ol' Jack Thompson is set in his ways, but also understand that if he can be publicly discredited, it's almost as big of an achievement to have his mind changed. If we can at least stop getting people to listen to this clueless ass-clown, we can still stop a wrong revolution from occuring.
Yeah, now I sound pretty bitter... but I still have a point, no?
Quote:However, should you actually engage him in conversational debate, here are a few points I though up when I was pondering the idea that you could also use, if you so choose:
* What do you say of the studies that show video games can actually improve a persons logical skills and reflexes?
* Do you feel that there are any games on the market now that are beneficial to the gaming populace (such as Nintendogs, DS Brain Training, and so forth)?
* Do you not feel that the media circus that surrounded your crusade against Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, may have added to sales of a game that was already 6 months old and starting to go downhill?
* On the topic of San Andreas, don't you think it's a bit excessive to penalize a game for content that it, for all intents and purposes, does not have?
* Do you feel that video games are solely to blame for violence? Many of the teens that have killed citing San Andreas as their motivation have already had troubled pasts.
* Do you feel we should also ban R-Rated movies? What about Stephen King books? Both of those can offer scenes (even if only written in explicit detail, with the latter example) far more horrific than even the goriest video game.
I'd just love to see what kind of answers he would pull out of his ass for these.
All good points, I'd love to see the same. He has noble intentions, he's just wrong.
Grumbler: In a pseudo-drunken stupor (I only had a couple drinks), I opened this thread and immediately began reading the quote. I later found out that it was you who wrote it and I have to say, I'm impressed... I'm not condescending to you, please don't think that, but I just mean you've become a very intelligent poster and I respect you for that.
Quote:I must take a small issue with your argument there though. You imagine that all psychology tests take place "in the lab". That's a bit off. Also, you suggest that any test won't reflect what may happen in the real world. If that is the case, in what way has a scientific test been conducted? The reality is scientists are welll aware of these limitations when they set up and conduct these tests. Any data they do gleam from them will be listed with exactly what limitations they know are in place. Reading a standard news site to get your scientific information is a bit of a middle man approach. I recommend reading the actual study straight from the scientists. Usually you can find these available at the web sites various institutes host. Then you can actually find the logical flaws in the experiment's design first hand, rather than giving a vague "well, I don't know the details, but science doesn't has it's limits!". If you look around, you may find that a lot of the tests may not have been conducted well and you can actually point out the flaws right there.
Good argument... I have to admit, I didn't know that myself, I pretty much just believed every word in Grumbler's essay (every one I read, at least, since I agree with it). It's about damned time (if it hasn't been done already
) that someone wrote an essay to put this guy in his place. I'd definitely work on it myself if I didn't have other stuff to worry about.
(Yeah, lookit me, I'm Sacred Jellybean, I have a life!!!! :crap: )
Quote:It affects people who are already too crazy not to know the difference between fantasy and reality. I have played San Andreas, and done many of the more deplorable things possible in that game. I've played Unreal Tournament and became quite adept at blowing off heads with a Sniper Rifle. I've played as Solid Snake and sealed the fates of hundereds of Genome Soldiers over the years.
Much to Jack Thompsons surprise, I'm sure, I have no desire nor motivation to do anything I've seen in a video game (bad, that is. I have been known to mimic Mario's jump and Auron's battle pose :D). You know why? Because I know the difference between what happens on my TV and what happens in real life. All of these people who have been "affected" by video games are already unbalanced, or at the very least, dangerously presentable. In essence, bombs just waiting for something, anything to light their fuse.
Fuckin' A, someone give this man a cigar. Pure, gospel truth.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Fuckin' A, someone give this man a cigar. Pure, gospel truth.
I'm just saying that I'm 22 years old and I play video games, and this is clear as day to me. Yet somehow, this 50-something year old, professionally trained lawyer can't put the pieces together? He lost all credibility in my eyes when he came out with that ridiculous claim that Sims are anatomically correct underneath the blur on The Sims 2. He did all that hard-hitting data research completely within the confines of his ass. Had he investigated for 15 minutes, he would seen that he is not only wrong, but also making himself look like an idiot.
Bitter? What makes you think I'm bitter :D.
I just have to keep remembering the fact that little kids play games involving such things as, yes, a bit of the ultra violence. Does "cops and robbers" ring a bell to this guy?
Here's a challenge. Instead of us having to defend gaming to him, how about he show us some evidence that games ARE in fact violent? He's the one making the claim after all.
http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php
Here we see an email debate between Jack thompson and VGCats Author Scot Ramsoomair (did I spell is right? Oh well).
Within it, lies my point about Jack. Through much of the emails he resorts to childish threats (I especially like "Get a name and a life" and "Dear Idiot"), stereotyping ("Honestly, are all of you gamers on drugs, or what?" shows you just the kind of reasonable person he is), and threats (Scott, this is your last warning. Don't send me any more emails. You are the person who initialed contacted me. I did not solicit the email. You will either stop or I will take legal action to make you stop.)
Personally, I like what Scott wrote in one of his emails after Jack told him to stop writing him or else:
"Or else? Oh Jack, you're a blue berry muffin of creamy fun."
I have to say I don't think VG Cats really put together a cogent argument per say, but it really doesn't matter. Jack is making his claims but doesn't seem to be backing them up.
You're all assuming Jack Thompson actually believes the garbage he spews and isn't just an opportunist looking for attention.
Quote:Grumbler: In a pseudo-drunken stupor (I only had a couple drinks), I opened this thread and immediately began reading the quote. I later found out that it was you who wrote it and I have to say, I'm impressed... I'm not condescending to you, please don't think that, but I just mean you've become a very intelligent poster and I respect you for that.
I can't take full credit for it, mostly would I did was pull together points from several different research articles and put it together in a cohesive essay. I did my homework though and I think that counts for something. :)
Oh, the last two paragraphs [and half of the second paragraph] are almost entirely my own work though.
I still can't get an email through to him, I'll try again tomorrow.
Smoke-X Wrote:You're all assuming Jack Thompson actually believes the garbage he spews and isn't just an opportunist looking for attention.
Nobody makes idiotic claims and arguments as bad as his on purpose. He's a special kind of idiot: the kind that somehow weaseled his way through a higher learning establisment.
Did you read the VGCats stuff? He talks like any pre-teen troll in a flamewar.
There is no reason to assume he's just trying to ride his way to fame just yet. Don't assume malice while mistake is a viable option. He may very well believe what he says. Sure his logic is flawed, but in recent months I've experienced the sheer depths of exactly how deep one can fall into delusions. This is lightweight. No seriously, this is nothing at all. The most damage he can do is to delude others.
Yes, human beings definitely can come to believe in delusions... once something has been conditioned into us, it seems very, very hard to remove. There is no other logical way for me to explain how people perpetuate practices that are detrimental to them and their own group in society just because "it's the way things always have been"... (changing the topic a bit, but it's on the issue of 'how do people convince themselves of the kinds of things they convince themselves of'... and the answer seems to be 'all too easily, and then it sticks'. I'm talking about all kinds of things here -- social class (accepting their lot in life, no matter how bad it is, since that's how it's always been -- if the group in question has a memory of when things were better this can be different, but when the memory is just of 'things always being like this'... you get Russia...), gender (obvious one here), religion, societal organization and practices that are clearly unfair (like the central asian and african practice of bride kidnapping, where a man kidnaps (no consent involved.) the woman he wants to marry, brings her home, and then has his female relatives convince/bully/force her to acceed to the marriage... I watched a show on PBS about it once... because 'that's how its always been done' it sticks around... and people come up with internal excuses for why this is okay, like always.), etc...)
That's the key, I think, coming up with internal excuses for why it is okay...
Interesting.
<img src="http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20051014l.jpg">
Alright, guys! This could be it!!
*stay tuned for updates as they come in*
Some of you will know who I'm talking about when I say Jackoff reminds me of MFBC Leader.
I forgot what that really stood for, but all of us back in the day had a dozen ideas, almost all of them patently offensive.
Then why would any of us get that? What exactly does it have to do with?
If you were one who did, you would know. You just happen to be one who doesn't.
Yes, if I knew I would know. Grand insight, that.
<img src="http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20051019l.jpg">
The guy's a douche, but as big a douche as he is, he's not going to take insults seriously, and his inbox is probably constantly crashing due to overwhelming amounts of flaming messages from haters. I imagine it'd be difficult for a civilized contradiction of his claims such as yours to get through to him, and even if it did, he'd probably overlook it within the pile of crap. Hell, he's probably changed email addresses by now.
I think I may have finally got through to his email inbox, but so far no reply.
Ryan Wrote:I forgot what that really stood for, but all of us back in the day had a dozen ideas, almost all of them patently offensive.
In reality it stood for "Mew Five-Billion Clan", a clan which may or may not have truly existed that he may or may not have truly been the leader of :D.
Ah, MFBC...he was one of those guys that hurt our side more than helped it with his "arguments", although it truly was a matter of bigger-is-better, so we couldn't afford to lose anyone, even him. You had your own idiots over at CypherStation, but nobody quite compared to good old MFBC.
"Nintendo used to be Atari..."
Okay, from that I take it that was a being from the ancient wars that took place during my long sleep. Dang, it's like the world was destroyed in a crucible of flames, highway robbers roamed the earth, and then it was rebuilt when the oil or water, oilwater, was freed from the dam.
Anyway, GR, as I said, I got through some time ago, when there was LESS hate mail aimed his way. That is, my e-mail was not simply forwarded back with a can't deliver error. He has it, but as to whether he even read it or has it filtered or whatnot... that's another story.
Did my response, which should be around here somewhere, seem cogent?
I must say you did do a good level of research on the history of violence. In my criticism above, I seem to have failed to mention that quite completely.
VIOLENCE!
Anyway, you realize what is going to happen right? This guy is going to take on a tactic of "ignore it and it will go away", and if history of illogical people who prefer to appeal to emotion rather than reason is any guide, I predict it will work, for a time, until eventually his popularity fades and he disappears, having contributed nothing to humanity.
Quote:Okay, from that I take it that was a being from the ancient wars that took place during my long sleep. Dang, it's like the world was destroyed in a crucible of flames, highway robbers roamed the earth, and then it was rebuilt when the oil or water, oilwater, was freed from the dam.
Not here, at Cypherstation.
Quote:Anyway, you realize what is going to happen right? This guy is going to take on a tactic of "ignore it and it will go away", and if history of illogical people who prefer to appeal to emotion rather than reason is any guide, I predict it will work, for a time, until eventually his popularity fades and he disappears, having contributed nothing to humanity.
An irrational way to deal with being wrong for sure... which is why, when it happens, we need to rise from the woodwork and with flames on sticks to chuck through his windows, then lock hands while we dance and laugh in a circular perimeter around the house, not allowing him to escape, allowing him to feel the SCORN and HUMILIATION of being so vocal, yet so god damn wrong! LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES, JACKY-BOY! MWAHAHAHAHA!!!
...
Or, you know, we don't have to go with the whole Frankenstein-aggression thing...
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Or, you know, we don't have to go with the whole Frankenstein-aggression thing...
No, that sounds good to me. I'll go get us some torches. Bring your own pitchforks.
That's a new one. Is that one of our smileys? If so, how long have we had it?
Doesn't look like one of ours to me...
Then add it! And not just a link, those break. As our full-of-once-cool-but-now-broken-links smilie list shows.
It gets my approval, whatever that counts for.
(nothing)
Add it, though!
Bee-tee-double-yoo:
Quote:I can't take full credit for it, mostly would I did was pull together points from several different research articles and put it together in a cohesive essay. I did my homework though and I think that counts for something.
Yep, it does. So many people seem to value talent nowadays... but in the end, it's the ability to work earnestly that's more important to a person's character, imo.
Being able to work hard is a talent in and of itself.
In the end, it call comes down to ability. There is a reason it is valued.
Quote:Being able to work hard is a talent in and of itself.
It could be... I'm no psych major, but I would guess that sacrificing and working hard is moreso a taught trait than an adopted one.
Here's a quandry about yo laundry, what of movies? No, not how they affect the audience, how they affect the actors. Those guys have to get "into" the role pretty much as far as they can, and a lot of those roles have been pure unadulterated evil beings (for example, dark lord of the sith). With video games being "murder sims", what of acting? Should all school acting clubs be shut down, as it is not only training some of them to become horrible people, but also is applauding this? Or, should we realize that when an actor plays a part, it is fantasy, and only someone who is already unstable would change their real world behavior based on this.
But there's more. Under the prediction that kids who play violent games will turn violent themselves, the reverse should be true. Should not the people who consider games evil for that reason also consider games that seem to teach positive values a blessing?
And further, it seems to me that this should be testable. Verifiable in the reverse. That is, you should be able to look at someone's behavior and conclude with that evidence whether or not that person has played violent video games in the past.
It seems to me we should let the scientists keep up on their work and not run around crying about how the games are corrupting the kids until we have the evidence that shows it to be the case.
![[Image: sno.gif]](http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/sno.gif)